The first ‘brain farc’ was Will Genia’s pass to Kurtley Beale when he had fullback Dane Haylett-Petty directly behind him in-goal. Beale compounded that error by cutting out Reese Hodge and throwing a long, soft floater in the direction of Michael Hooper. Try Springboks! Had Genia passed to Haylett-Petty, the ball would have been easily kicked to touch.

Look at the replay over and over. Does it appear that the Wallabies were ever structured to play defense? Not so much. It looks far more like this was a something they’d cooked up in advance – for somewhere else on the pitch. They were set to run the ball and the Hodge cut-out was Beale’s off script mistake.

This might have made sense as a last minute attempt to score a needed try, but…in the first minute of the match? Who coaches this rubbish.

At first glance this looks an improvement.
However, the suits need to sort out the red card issues first.
When a red card decision takes opinions from 4 refs and a couple mins of reviewing slow motion video there is a lot more to fix than a yellow-red-black card system can handle.
An afterthought: this would probably just be a license to hand out more red cards and further increase the refs’ potential influence on what is left of the game.

Did not see 3rd Test until Sunday night Australian E.T. What follows is what I wrote w/o the benefit of Spiro’s comments and the rest of the others’ expert insight. Maybe redundant, maybe not. In response to the Spiro’s title alone,I say it isn’t just a ‘playmaker’ we need at #10 – we need someone who will play a full 80 minutes slogging out the hard work like the remaining 14 players.

*****

Bernard Foley and Nick Phipps have to go – individually, and even more so as a combination. They’ve had enough Test matches to show they are not good enough. Probably not even 2nd or 3rd choices for any country that aspires to a #1 ranking and a 3rd World Cup title.

What are the selectors thinking when they pick these two – that the WBs can play and win with only 14 players on the pitch? In the 2nd test we saw an example of exactly that – Koroibete’s 10 mins in the bin combined with Foley’s 70 min walkabout. 14 against 15 – a good effort by the WBs (that actually played) but no joy!

Foley has his moments. Say,10 minutes a game. The rest of the time he is MIA. In the 1st test he wore #10 but mostly passed to the de facto #10 Beale (who actually plays 80 mins). What else did he do? It certainly wasn’t running the ball at his opposite. He definitely did not applying any pressure, let alone tackle them. In the 2nd test Foley seemed to flit around like a 7s sweeper doing who knows what. He was most visible marking the opposing hooker at LOs and chatting up the assistant ref on the left wing.

More critically, Foley is a mediocre kicker. He cannot place kick or punt far enough to worry any major opponent. His place kicking stats are deceptive rubbish. He takes the close ones and, for good reason, isn’t offered anything else. In the 2nd and 3rd tests against Ireland, the WBs turned down a number of long range penalty kicks because Foley is only good for 30-35 m. and hardly deadly at that range. That shortcoming, if nothing else, should worry the selectors. A long penalty kick at goal that goes dead or into the stands – even if missed – can change the game. The forwards get a break and the restart is another possession.

In the closing minutes of the 3rd test the WBs were playing for an Irish penalty anywhere within 60 m. of the Irish goal line…because Reece Hodge was finally on the pitch. Anyone out there naive enough to think the Irish hadn’t noticed? Hodge wouldn’t need to be much of a #10 to be better value than Foley.

Phipps is busy but he is not quick enough, fast enough, or creative enough to worry anyone at test level. Trying hard doesn’t count in big matches. To his credit Phipps plays his heart out. You get 100% but it isn’t enough.

The game immediately looked different in the few minutes that Joe Powell was on to replace Phipps. He was just as busy as Phipps and looked much more alert, purposeful and skilful. He made a good fist of a monster pass that had to be made but wasn’t to be. Powell also took one useful run, and seemed generally unintimidated by the intensity of those last few minutes of such high stakes match.

Selectors – 15 (23) real players please.

The ONLY reason there is any controversy about this RC is the apparently lack of injury to the tackled player. The tackle meets every definition of what constitutes a RC offense. Let this tackle go and you’d being seeing it used in defense of myriad egregious violations at all levels of the game all over the world. The slightest change in angle of impact could have been disastrous for the player and for the game, RC or not. Do we need even one more quadriplegic ex-rugby player? If it was your son, daughter, spouse, teammate, friend would you be so quick to defend it? Allegedly ‘ruining(?)’ this particular match is a pathetic argument for downplaying an incident that could easily have been a disaster for the game itself. If the tackled player had been seriously injured the RC would not have been controversial, but more importantly it would not have made his injuries better either.The IRB has it right – best not to take any chances.

Roland was thinking clearly and should be commended for making the call irrespective of the consequences for this game and these two teams.

Moaman, you tell him that when you send him off. He’s just spent ten frustrating minutes in the bin stewing about letting his mates down. If Mssr Poite paid more attention to his real job Kittshoff would not have been coming back from the bin – it was gratuitous.

Pothale:

Re: Who made the WC squad?

In starting XV vs Samoa

Sekope Kepu
Stephen Moore
Ben Alexander
Nathan Sharpe
Rocky Elsom
Ben McCalman
Nick Phipps
Digby Ioane
Pat McCabe
Adam Ashley-Cooper

Bench

Dan Vickerman
Scott Higginbotham
Will Genia
Kurtley Beale

Lion R: This is about being a captain. Perhaps if he wasn’t ‘mildly distracted’ by this nuisance responsibility he would be in better form? I’m inclined to think so. He wasn’t burdened by such when he was tearing things up for Leinster. We can only hope he’ll find that kind of form in the next month.

WHM: I appreciate the indulgence of having a go at this. It doesn’t really answer the question but it does provide a structured perspective. It would be interesting to now see what others think of your assessment. I had not given the alternative much thought but cannot find fault with your assessment. JH in 3rd will probably give a few Roarers a mild rash.

Without meaning to argue the point, I find your score of 9 on Rugby Nous for Genia interesting. I recall reading somewhere that he did not play rugby (contrast to JH and DP) until he went to high school (BBC in Brisbane?). Not sure where he was before then, but there is relatively little rugby played in PNG. Before going to boarding school I’d never seen it.

WNM: I didn’t say he is THE greatest. I’d say he will be regarded as THE greatest by AB fans (after receiving his Knighthood) if he there when they eventually break the drought.

Joshy H: It is a bit rough to have to win it all to be considered great. He only get to play one position after all.

Warren: Where did I make a reference to game day stats?

You are avoiding the issue. Such ratings are never going to be ‘objective’. The point of this post was to suggest just the opposite. Unless you develop and consistently apply some kind of criteria moaning about how poor someone is as a captain (or a player) on the basis of his last match is meaningless. It is not clear why, but you appear to be overly concerned with suggesting a defense for Rocky’s captaincy on grounds where my subjective rating (without reference to any particular match) gave him a decent mark (one of the few).

How well he plays is probably the least important (not unimportant) of the criteria anyway. Switch to one of the other criteria such as communication. One smile or one frown means nothing. However, if you must, how often have you seen him smile, speak to teammates or the ref when he wasn’t irritated about something, or display body language that conveyed something positive? Great communicator? Hardly.

Pardon the reference – I have no reason to assume you are schizophrenic, so if you rate these four on the six criteria it is somewhat likely your rankings are going to give similar relative results. Your relative rankings are meaningful – even if you do not want to think about it that way or admit it. You can validly argue that there is always going to be a seventh (7th) X-factor criterion. However, that is unlikely to make up for a bunch of other shortcomings.

The focus of the post is on why Richie and the others are great captains. However, if you accept that the criteria at least have some intuitively validity, no matter how you ‘rate’ the four individually you will end up with Rocky well behind the other three.

Finally, following on your comment about Richie, whatever happens in 2011 Rocky won’t be around long enough for the makeover.

Warren: So rate him yourself if if you think this is wrong. Perhaps others agree with you.

AdamS, should be the captain, but that is a different post…if the eds approve it.

Hoy, I posted the link to all the stats but the editors took it down. Can’t help. However, I disagree about ‘shellshocked’ and ‘blitzed’ off the field. They held up in the line-outs and scrums and played with some purpose.

The issue that concerns me most is their inability to retain the ball at breakdowns. They have to play their own game, but routinely losing the ball in contact is a blight on that game and totally inexcusable. It would not be a surprise to find out that opposition coaching focuses on tackling the ball when playing them knowing full well they are vulnerable. Maybe a few hours a week with a league coach focusing on ball retention would help them focus on ball retention instead of plowing through one more tackler.

It could have made a big difference on Saturday – kickoffs included.

Scrap the competition for what? Warm up matches against…???

The only major rugby countries in the world that have the luxury of playing lead up matches to the WC against the best and the potential dark horses are in the SH. Even if/when those matches feature a mix of A/B players the alternatives are a step or two down and probably not worth much at all.

Any risk to players from a steady diet of proper competition is easily outweighed by the benefit of games that have more at stake than a domestic club match or a trumped up friendly against PNG or ??? The two tests the Wallabys have played already paid dividends. A glimpse of form from Elsom and AAC that was totally absent all S15 season to start.

If we didn’t have the Tri Nations we’d be subjected to endless whining from Roarers about the lack of proper competition. Sometimes things are just fine the way they are. This is one of them..

Eben, when I saw the headline I was ready to pitch the idea of switching Cummins to 13 – very pleased to see someone else has given him a thought.

Cummins has size, speed, power, and just enough elusiveness to make him a bona fide prospect at 13. Add in his no-nonsense approach (overlooking the mane) – ‘shut-up and play’ attitude, willingness to tackle, chase and ruck, and you have a potential winner. I cannot say that I’ve ever seen him pass (or pass poorly), but he seems talented enough to notice when his options have evaporated. It would not surprise that given a chance he would make a real fist of the opportunity.

Its not likely to happen for him on the wing.

Rocky, your mates may be the ‘best’ players on the team. Bear in mind that 99% of all foreign players in the US who come from a Top 10 rugby nation think that they are the best players on the team. Most (not all) didn’t rate before they arrived but find the accent works wonders for their credibility. They are, without exception, great tacticians, shadow captains/coaches and laws experts. Irrespective of reality the rugby they played was a much higher standard, e.g., ‘The standard is apparently similar to 5th grade school boy teams (15-16 year olds)’. This is typical nonsense, unless…did they join a women’s team? If they are average before they arrive they are still average – or they would be playing A/B grade club rugby at home.

The real issue with the standard of play in the US remains coaching. Even the best coaches aren’t much good and on average coaching is simply incompetent. You cannot become an artist by taking an art class and a couple coaching courses don’t make a coach.

Few of those coaching ever had a good coach themselves. The system, such as it is, remains an ‘incestuous’ mess at all levels. Systemic incompetence does little for development. Even with rising numbers the players coming through remain clueless. The ones who happen to have played in high school have a little more than their peers. However, with few exceptions their development stagnates when they move to collegiate or club rugby. Their teammates are novices and the coaching (even where somewhat competent) is spread so thin. 18 year old players with no real business coaching anyone end up ‘coaching’ their teammates.

You can be 100% certain that your mates are now ‘coaching’ their teammates. Do you think they should be coaching anyone?

Giteau at #9? Rubbish.

Am I the only one that remembers just how badly he played when he was tried at #9? It is one thing to step in and do the job when the starting #9 is trapped in a ruck – quite another to start in that position and stay there for 80 minutes. He is not a #9. He regularly lost focus on the #9’s primary responsibilities, showed up too late to deliver quick ball, ran far too much to be effective, and created more problems than he stayed around to solve. Giteau went missing more often than Moore shows up at OC. That all occurred when his stock was high and he may actually have had a reasonably good attitude about it. Not now.

If Giteau has what it takes to be a #9 now, he also has what it takes to lose his attitude and play effectively at 10, 12 or 15. It isn’t going to happen. Anyone who seriously thinks this is plausible has not been watching him strut his ego for the last 12 months. Without his stellar (albeit rapidly fading) past he would have been dropped long ago – from the Brumbies and the Wallabies.

PJ,

Agreed. I am also a long time Brumbies supporter. The use of ‘abomination’ seems apt – at least for their performance thus far. Giteau is not the only problem but his ego is the catalyst for everything else. Giteau has his blind supporters and you will likely hear from them identifying bits of brilliance and ignoring the overall mess. The Brumbies scored 4 tries against the Reds. How many would they have scored with a competent captain, a real 5/8 and less selfish play from Giteau playing anywhere else?

Whatever his motives, Giteau’s play at best reflects a lack of trust in or a total disregard of the skills of his teammates. At worst it is egocentrism as pathology. While I agree with your suggested line up changes, I would also agree to almost anything that leaves Giteau off the team completely.

Bring back Bernie!

Excellent assessment Stillmissit. Nothing more to read here.

It appears that Mealamu may actually be pulling Moody’s collar to line up his target ‘target’. Then again maybe that is an attempt to push himself away? Probably not.

What is the point of comparing this to Hartley? Bad day at the office for both.

Darren, thank you for putting this in the red column here on the Roar.

After being ignored in my blue column post on Monday, and repeatedly dismissed for my comments referring to the same issue on Brett McKay’s post it is a relief to see that someone else thought the same. Substantiating the obvious with Carter’s comment about maintaining their No 1 ranking by thinking outside of the square, and the quote ‘With our game plan, we like to keep things pretty fresh by tweaking little things’ made my day. Donnelly’s comment, ‘It’s a pretty special skill to be able to do that kick,’ – is spot on!

Clearly the ABs think ‘little’ details count – and produce points on the board. If we cannot even discern them, or worse, refuse to acknowledge the obvious – however subtle – we deserve to continue to lose.

Colin, you say ‘ There isn’t a special way that Carter kicks it compared to someone like Flood or Wilkinson, or anyone in fact.’ Really? I suppose such blanket assessments apply to Cooper’s passing, or Shane Williams’ sidestepping or… whatever.

Not having a look, let alone studying and comparing, is your choice. We will have to agree to disagree – at least until next weekend.

Ben, yes I did. They were not too flash. However this really is different.

There are many ways to screw up a KO by both receiving and kicking teams. I noted that the Boks uncharacteristically had some of the same problems and did not adjust either. You cannot prepare for something if you don’t understand what is happening. Much of the problem with the KOs last week was that the receivers were rarely in the correct place. If the ball travels unpredictably it is always going to be easier for the kicking side going forward to adjust and they did leaving the Wallabies looking clueless. It is the way Carter is kicking it. Even in a covered stadium he was able to deliver this strange ball – sort of like a slow, curving change up in baseball.

You seem ready to dismiss this rather quickly. If you did not notice this take a few minutes to study Carter’s KOs in the 2nd Bok’s test and last week. If we don’t adjust to the correct issue we are going to have the same problems this coming week no matter how much they work on it.

Good points Brett, details count and add up quickly against the ABs and Boks.

There are, however, also some big points that surprisingly seem to elude the coaches and the players. The KOs were abysmal but I don’t see it as just poor execution or lack of focus. I posted a note earlier pointing out that Carter has changed the way he kicks off. I will not repeat it here.

This change needs to be addressed by the coaching staff. The ABs had the same problem in the second test. They uncharacteristically missed the ball completely on two occasions because of the strange, lazy curving trajectory Carter is getting on the ball with his new/refined approach.

The first time the ball sailed over the Bok’s receivers and Reid (?) ran though on it I thought it looked different. Stopped the video and went back to look at it and there it was. It isn’t even subtle. Even my wife could see it. As best I can recall he continued all through the match on Saturday night and we never did adjust.

Talk about ‘dropping the ball.’

Another thing, how many times do the ABs have to pass the ball from KOs back to McCaw before someone notices the pattern and couple of defenders are set up to deal with him? A couple of runners back from the OS line with slightly different timing to run through at pace would at least put some pressure on behind the ABs’ gain line.

It is generally considered to be inappropriate to refer to alleged crimes as anything more than alleged. Do you or anyone know why the charges were dropped? If not, talking about it as if he would have automatically been convicted is irresponsible.